Summary of “The Unsung Woman Who Changed How We Take Care of Newborns”

According to Dr. Selma Calmes, a leading anesthetist, Virginia entered this field “In the right time and the right place.” It was not common in the 1940s to be anesthetized when giving birth, but Virginia’s new job involved her in the process of Caesarean delivery.
New anesthetics were being developed and Virginia made numerous careful observations of how they affected both the mother and the newborn baby.
One of her colleagues, Dr. Stanley James, later said, “Virginia was not just a doctor. She was also an educator.” As obstetric anesthetics was such a new field, there was not much published material but Virginia was pragmatic by nature and improvised with what teaching aids were available: she used old bones, or even her own pelvic bone which had an unusual shape, shocking one Australian doctor who had heard about Dr. Apgar’s pelvis and presumed it belonged to the old and much used skeleton.
The feature of delivery rooms that struck Virginia so forcibly in the late 1940s and early 1950s was the care of babies just after they were born.
The medical student may have been surprised by the seemingly instantaneous production of a new scoring system, but Virginia’s thoughts were the result of her many years of painstaking observations and clinical knowledge.
As a practicing anesthetist, Virginia’s daily work involved close contact with newborns.
After testing the scoring system on more than 1,000 newborns, Virginia’s test was presented at a meeting in 1952 and, in 1953, Virginia published her findings.
Ten years later, in 1963, the newborn screening test was officially designated the Apgar test, when Dr. Joseph Butterfield at the Children’s Hospital in Denver suggested an acronym using Virginia’s surname to help users remember what to look for: Appearance, Pulse, Grimace, Activity, and Respiration.

The orginal article.

Summary of “Stop Keeping Score”

That’s why you have to train yourself to stop feeding your ego by keeping score.
I’ve had conflicts in the past about keeping score.
I’ve also seen family members destroy relationships because they kept score.
I think there’s a relationship between keeping score and self-confidence.
Keeping score is something you do to prove a point, right? There’s no other reason I can think of after reading, researching, and talking endlessly about this subject.
I don’t worry about keeping score, because I know that, over a lifetime, the score will always be equal.
It makes no sense keeping score because we all chase the same goals.
Keeping score is a nasty trait that you want to avoid at all costs.

The orginal article.

Summary of “How I Would Have Fared on the SAT’s Adversity Score”

Neither my mother nor I knew then that it was a test for which I could have and probably should have studied, but I did well enough to gain admission to the school of her choice.
Since the SAT was first instituted, in 1926, it has been promoted as the meritocratic instrument that my mother imagined.
Earlier this month, the College Board rolled out a new amendment to the test: a metric formally called the Environmental Context Dashboard, but widely referred to as the adversity score, which takes note of a student’s socioeconomic background and may be used by college-admissions offices to contextualize the relevance of an SAT score.
Twenty-five years ago, when my mother began trying to get us onto the élite-education conveyer belt, she was trying desperately to wrest for me the privileges to which someone like me would otherwise have no access.
In terms of high-school environment, I would have appeared to be among the country’s most privileged kids: thanks to my mother’s diligence, after I took the SSAT, I won a generous scholarship to a top-ranked boarding school that featured state-of-the-art facilities and an abundance of A.P. classes and extracurricular activities.
During the academic year, the school paid for my health insurance, but my mother was never able to afford dental insurance.
Ironically while an adversity score might have bettered my chances in college admissions, my mother would have adamantly objected to it.
My mother surprised me by saying, “You already go to the best school that is supposed to prepare you for college.” She seemed to think that that was enough to guarantee a perfect score.

The orginal article.

Summary of “Make School Hard Again – Reason.com”

His alleged tactics included falsifying standardized test results and bribing coaches to fraudulently nominate students for athletic scholarships, sometimes in sports they didn’t even play in high school.
Much less notice has been paid to another sea change that enabled this scandal to occur: It is still very hard to get into elite schools, but it’s not at all difficult to graduate.
In a different era, obtaining a diploma from an Ivy League school required hard work and real educational attainment for almost any major.
Today, thanks to grade inflation, such students can and do pass through top schools with top honors, especially in the liberal arts.
Though grades have always been lower in science, technology, engineering, and math subjects than in the arts and humanities, graduating from a good school with a degree in any major did not use to be a cakewalk.
As the conversation around higher ed has increasingly come to focus on inclusivity and maximizing graduation rates, elite universities have reacted by eliminating their core curricula, dumbing down the requirements that remain, or providing so many degree options that a student of average ability at an average school could be placed in most top liberal arts colleges and still survive.
Who would more likely win admission to a top school: the wealthy world-traveler with prestigious extracurriculars, or the scrappy straight-A student who spends his summers working for minimum wage to help cover his tuition?
The combined SAT verbal and math result for the lowest-scoring student is often comparable to that of the average score at an elite school.

The orginal article.

Summary of “What Baseball Teaches Us About Measuring Talent”

The subject of Christopher Phillips’s “Scouting and Scoring: How We Know What We Know About Baseball” is baseball, but it’s worth reading for more than just the baseball.
The “Scorer” is what’s known in baseball as a sabermetrician.
“Moneyball” is the story of how a baseball team that did not have a lot of money to spend on players, the Oakland A’s, deployed a new way of evaluating talent and proceeded, for several years, to compete with teams that had much bigger stars and much higher payrolls, like the New York Yankees.
As both Phillips and Lewis point out, baseball scoring begins almost as soon as there is baseball.
The first known box scores, breaking down the stats of games, appear in 1845; by the eighteen-sixties, Phillips says, “Nearly everyone in baseball was counting in one form or another.”
Virtually everyone in baseball spends time in that system, which means that scouts and scorers are often trying to guess what a seventeen- or twenty-year-old is going to play like when he’s twenty-five and finally arrives in the big leagues.
Scorer types aren’t interested in history; Phillips tries to show us that knowing the past can help us grasp what’s at stake in the choices we make in the present.
Phillips seems to be ignoring the lesson of his own book, which is that history shows that the tension between scouting and scoring is always with us.

The orginal article.

Summary of “What Makes Some People More Productive Than Others”

We’ve learned a lot about personal productivity and what makes some people more productive than others.
Second, age and seniority were highly correlated with personal productivity – older and more senior professionals recorded higher scores than younger and more junior colleagues.
More specifically, we found that professionals with the highest productivity scores tended to do well on the same clusters of habits.
The North American score was significantly lower than the average productivity scores for respondents from Europe, Asia, and Australia.
While our survey turned up significant differences in productivity scores by continent, it showed minimal differences between the average scores of male and female respondents.
Women tended to score particularly high when it came to running effective meetings – women were more likely than men to send out an agenda in advance, keep meetings to less than 90 minutes, and finish meetings with an agreement on next steps.
The drivers of these higher productivity scores for respondents in older age brackets were their stronger habits in four areas: developing routines for low-value activities, managing message flow, running effective meetings, and delegating tasks to others.
The left tail comprised those with the lowest scores; the right tail had the highest scores.

The orginal article.

Summary of “Did a slave make your sneakers? The answer is: probably”

KnowTheChain has developed a scoring system to identify how large, global apparel and footwear companies-from Gap to Louis Vuitton to Nike-fare in terms of worker treatment.
KnowTheChain makes the case that these companies are culpable for their role in the exploitation of workers no matter where it happens in the supply chain.
The scoring system takes into account how these companies address many issues relating to the payment of workers.
If they compound interest on the fee, a worker may never make enough money to pay it back, rendering them a lifelong slave.
One audit KnowTheChain examined found that an apparel company in Taiwan charged migrant workers US$7000 for a job at a fabric mill.
Lululemon has worked hard to ensure that workers in its supply chains get all of their identification documents, like their passports, returned to them.
Many of these brands make their products in Europe, but KnowTheChain says that European workers are also vulnerable to exploitation.
In Italy Chinese laborers are sometimes subjected to forced labor in textile factories, and in Bulgaria, Macedonia, Moldova, Romania, and Turkey, workers have been denied time off, and had to work overtime beyond legal limits for “Staggeringly low wages.”

The orginal article.

Summary of “China’s Orwellian Social Credit Score Isn’t Real – Foreign Policy”

The concept of social credit is not defined in the increasing array of national documents governing the system, but its essence is compliance with legally prescribed social and economic obligations and performing contractual commitments.
The social credit system does not itself produce scores, grades, or assessments of “Good” or “Bad” social credit.
The Chinese term for credit reporting is often translated as “Credit scoring.” However, the primary financial credit reporting system for companies and individuals overseen by the People’s Bank of China, China’s central bank, does not provide credit scores or assessments with its standard reports and does not mention “Scoring” in its definition of credit reporting.
The PBOC’s Credit Reference Center, like licensed private credit reporting agencies, does offer financial credit scores.
Widely reported private credit scoring programs launched not by credit reporting agencies but by some payment platforms such as Alibaba’s, which consider e-commerce and social media interactions as well as financial histories to determine customer scores, likely also contributed to the misconception of a social credit score.
Baihang may offer credit scoring products, but those scores, as opposed to the data on which they are based, are not part of the official social credit system yet.
Unless people are sole proprietors or company representatives, have taken a loan or credit card, violated the law, or defaulted on a court judgment, they’re unlikely to be in the social credit database.
Again, that misconception typically arises from conflating private commercial rewards programs, which do consider shopping and social behaviors in assigning their own credit scores to customers who opt in to the program, with the government-sponsored social credit system.

The orginal article.

Summary of “Kirk Goldsberry on The King’s evolving offensive game”

Since entering the NBA in October 2003, LeBron James has transformed from one of the league’s least effective volume scorers into a hyper-efficient offensive mastermind, dominating opposing defenses with an incredible blend of interior scoring prowess and perimeter shot creation.
James struggled mightily as a scorer in his rookie campaign.
Of the 46 players who attempted at least 1,000 field goals that season, James ranked 41st in effective field goal percentage.
James’ ability to score at the basket would quickly become his calling card.
The story of James transforming from inefficient rookie into NBA scoring champion is one of a player learning how to attack defenses with his ferocious blend of speed and strength to create scoring chances in the paint.
During the 2007-08 season, James was the only player to attempt 600 or more shots in the restricted area.
James became the best in the world at scoring in the little area that NBA defenses work to protect the most.
To defend James over the past decade is to pick a poison: Either you let him blow by one-on-one coverages and score countless buckets at the rim, or you slow down his interior attacks with help defense and allow him to create clean looks for his teammates.

The orginal article.

Summary of “Does an IQ Test Make You an Authentic Genius?”

Terman subjected hundreds of school kids to his newfangled IQ test.
Despite his sub-genius score on Terman’s IQ test, he managed to get his B.S. from Cal Tech and his Ph.D. from MIT, both prestigious technical institutions.
A more contemporary example is Marilyn vos Savant, who was once listed in the Guinness Book of World Records as having the highest recorded IQ. Reportedly, she had taken a revised version of the Stanford-Binet when she was just 10 years old, and got a perfect score! Although there’s some debate about how best to translate that performance into a precise IQ estimate, it is certainly arguable that she is more intelligent than the brightest Termite and any member of Cox’s 301.
Her IQ scores cannot really be equated with Terman’s IQ scores.
Getting a score of 140 on an IQ test is not the only one.
If you’re smart enough to score 140 or better on an IQ test, then all by all means go that route.
Just pick some “Department of art, speculation, or practice,” and then achieve eminence for some “Imaginative creation, original thought, invention, or discovery.” Admittedly, this second course seems much more arduous, and may even take a whole lifetime to accomplish, but at least you can avoid taking any IQ test whatsoever! Plus, your claim to genius status just might withstand the test of time.
Authentic genius leaves an impact longer than a testing session, creating a pervasive impression that endures for decades, even centuries.

The orginal article.